--- In
qalam@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Dunbar <hippietrail@...> wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but this subject of the differing
> typology of Thai and Lao reminded me of a comment on
> Amazon about the change in Lao orthography under the
> communist government:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804809097/qid=1123103176/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/102-0373435-5816141?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#R3MMIVQ3GQWOYV
>
> My guess is that Lao was an alphabet before, during,
> and after these changes and that the changes had no
> effect on the script's typology. Is that right or is
> the story more interesting?
>
> Also was it Lao or Thai which changed after the split
> or was there never an actual split between these two
> scripts, merely one being based on the other but the
> two always having different typologies to each other?
Quite frankly, I find it hard to accept that they are truly different
scripts. The typological difference is due to two minor differences:
1) Lao has a symbol for the high mid short vowel /o/ - Thai does not,
and uses the implicit vowel instead in closed syllables.
2) Lao always writes the short vowel /a/ in 'open' syllables - Thai
sometimes writes it, sometimes doesn't. Such rules as I can discern
seem to be etymological. (It is always written in native
monosyllables, with one possibile exception whose spelling implies it
is not native.)
Lao shares Feature (1) with the Lanna script, which remains an abugida
because the short vowel /a/ is normally not written in non-final
'open' syllables. (The Lanna script belongs to the Mon branch, while
Thai/Lao belongs to the Khmer branch, but the Lanna and Thai/Lao
scripts have Tai-specific features not shared with Khmer or Lao.)
Lao uses a somewhat archaic style, but don't claim it is massively
different unless you can read Thai shop signs.
Unfortunately, I can't find anything to date Feature 2, but I'd bet it
was 20th century. Lao certainly seems to be an alphabet now - there's
a reasonable sample at
http://www.mrcmekong.org/lao.htm
Richard.